Final resolution of issue 4751

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Final resolution of issue 4751

Carl Sorensen
Trying to verify closed issues, I came across #4751

https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/4751

Apparently it was pushed, and then changes were made, and people
didn't like it, and so there is no final commit.  Yet it is still
tagged as fixed,

Can anybody give me guidance as to how I should proceed?  Should I
just verify the issue and call it good?

Thanks for the input.

Carl

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Final resolution of issue 4751

David Kastrup
Carl Sorensen <[hidden email]> writes:

> Trying to verify closed issues, I came across #4751
>
> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/4751
>
> Apparently it was pushed, and then changes were made, and people
> didn't like it, and so there is no final commit.  Yet it is still
> tagged as fixed,
>
> Can anybody give me guidance as to how I should proceed?  Should I
> just verify the issue and call it good?
>
> Thanks for the input.

Huh, that's a tricky one.  I don't remember the details any more, but it
appears like the imported changes possibly caused some regressions (but
there are no hard verifiable statements in this report itself?) but were
kept in.  I don't really have a good idea here.

--
David Kastrup

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Final resolution of issue 4751

Valentin Villenave-3
On 5/16/20, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't really have a good idea here.

Looks like quite a mess.  I’ve re-categorized it as Status::Started,
and removed the Fixed_2_19_44 label for now.  I‘ve also linked it with
issue #4781 since it seems there’s quite a bit of overlap.

Jean, since you wanted to dive into musicxml stuff, perhaps you could
investigate exactly what parts of John Gourlay’s work got merged
(and/or possibly un-merged) and whether there remain some potentially
interesting leftovers? There’s a good chance that was the last time
anyone did any substantial work on musicxml import, so perhaps that
would be as good an entry point as any (though, I’m afraid, not very
glamorous).

Cheers,
-- V.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Final resolution of issue 4751

Carl Sorensen
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 4:20 PM Valentin Villenave
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 5/16/20, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I don't really have a good idea here.
>
> Looks like quite a mess.  I’ve re-categorized it as Status::Started,
> and removed the Fixed_2_19_44 label for now.  I‘ve also linked it with
> issue #4781 since it seems there’s quite a bit of overlap.

I think Status::Started is wrong, since it has been pushed in some form.

I think I will check through it again and see if I can make a better
determination, instead of having it go to Started.

I suspect the best thing to do is to close this issue, since it's so
messed up (a push, and closed, and reopened, and closed again, even
before today).

If there are problems with musicxml2ly, I think it deserves a new issue.

>
> Jean, since you wanted to dive into musicxml stuff, perhaps you could
> investigate exactly what parts of John Gourlay’s work got merged
> (and/or possibly un-merged) and whether there remain some potentially
> interesting leftovers? There’s a good chance that was the last time
> anyone did any substantial work on musicxml import, so perhaps that
> would be as good an entry point as any (though, I’m afraid, not very
> glamorous).

If Jean wants to do it, I think it should follow after a resolution of
this issue.

Thanks,

Carl

>
> Cheers,
> -- V.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Final resolution of issue 4751

Carl Sorensen
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 6:43 PM Carl Sorensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 4:20 PM Valentin Villenave
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/16/20, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I don't really have a good idea here.
> >
> > Looks like quite a mess.  I’ve re-categorized it as Status::Started,
> > and removed the Fixed_2_19_44 label for now.  I‘ve also linked it with
> > issue #4781 since it seems there’s quite a bit of overlap.
>
> I think Status::Started is wrong, since it has been pushed in some form.
>
> I think I will check through it again and see if I can make a better
> determination, instead of having it go to Started.
>
> I suspect the best thing to do is to close this issue, since it's so
> messed up (a push, and closed, and reopened, and closed again, even
> before today).
>
> If there are problems with musicxml2ly, I think it deserves a new issue.
>

After more review, and seeing how the commits are all messed up with a
huge variety of other changes, the best thing to do is close this
issue and call it Verified.  IMO it's better to start over than try to
fix this one (and we do hav 4781 which came after and claims to fix
it.

Carl